Tired of financial difficulties, Deep Silver finds a new home for its game.

Update: According to Kotaku, Crytek has experienced an exodus of its senior staff over the past week. Also, its American studio has been downsized, and its upcoming F2P co-op shooter Hunt: Horrors of the Gilded Age has been moved to its Frankfurt, Germany office.

Meanwhile, composer Graeme Norgate, along with many other ex-Crytek UK employees, has landed on his feet at the new studio. As he puts it, "Good bye Crytanic, hello Deep Silver Dambuster Studios!"

Original Story: It's been a tough time for developer Crytek. The story involves a high-ranking producer leaves, skipped paychecks, and bankruptcy rumors. Now, developer Deep Silver, apparently tired of waiting for Crytek to get their act together, has acquired all the rights and assets for the in-development Homefront: The Revolution, giving it instead to its newly-formed Dambuster Studio.

"We strongly believe in the potential of Homefront: The Revolution," said Deep Silver CEO Dr. Klemens Kundratitz, "and trust in the new team to continue the path they have been walking in the last years."

Woe seems to follow Homefront wherever it goes. The first game was originally developed by the ex-modder team Kaos Studios and published by THQ. After both entities went up in flames, the rights were purchased by Crytek for a paltry $500,000. Even better, the Homefront sequel was being handled by Crytek UK, which was composed of rescue-hires when Haze developer Free Radical went under in 2009. Already in dire financial straits, this cannot be good news for the ailing developer.

At this point, the history of this game seems to be a secession of shipwrecks, with each new rescue vessel sinking, one after another. Hopefully Dambuster doesn't follow suit.

In other news, Deep Silver are now doomed, thanks to the Homefront Curse. What is it that companies see in this IP? I played the original, it was a neat concept but certainly nothing revolutionary (pardon the pun)

Zhukov:Does the prestigious, beloved and storied brand name that is Homefront really justify this amount of fuss and bother?

Are they really looking at this mess and saying, "Yup, we got a real sleeper hit on our hand here lads"?

Its Deep Silver, they did the same with Metro and it worked fine.

Also this one is looking rather interesting, I guess it will be like what Sleeping Dogs ended up being for True Crime (that Square Enix got when it was almost finished), a good sequel that took out the shit and brought a lot of new good stuff.

Andy Shandy:In other news, Deep Silver are now doomed, thanks to the Homefront Curse. What is it that companies see in this IP? I played the original, it was a neat concept but certainly nothing revolutionary (pardon the pun)

It was only concept, two hour campaign, and a rather bland multiplayer.

Also this one is looking rather interesting, I guess it will be like what Sleeping Dogs ended up being for True Crime (that Square Enix got when it was almost finished), a good sequel that took out the shit and brought a lot of new good stuff.

Either that or we have a new Duke Nuke'em Forever on our hands. A game with plenty of potential that will turn out mediocre due to constant developer changes and lack of coherent artistic and technical focus.

man, Crytek really should have managed itself better. This really reeks of a company not spending its money intelligently and thus problems are multiplying manifold. In fact most studios' problems can just be summarized with them being incompetent with money. Seriously, get a proper budgeting team into these companies lest gaming start to shrink

Once the Homefront acquisition is complete, the members of the Homefront: The Revolution development team will "transfer their talents" to Dambuster Studios and continue working on the game, Crytek announced today.

While the game is switching publishers from CryTeck to Deep Silver, the same devs are working on it. We do not have another Duke Nukem Forever on our hands. Well, at least not yet.

josemlopes:Its Deep Silver, they did the same with Metro and it worked fine.

Also this one is looking rather interesting, I guess it will be like what Sleeping Dogs ended up being for True Crime (that Square Enix got when it was almost finished), a good sequel that took out the shit and brought a lot of new good stuff.

The difference is that Metro 2033 actually had fans. I don't think I've ever heard anybody say anything more positive about Homefront than "It was alright I suppose"

josemlopes:Its Deep Silver, they did the same with Metro and it worked fine.

With respect to the Metro series, Metro 2033 was far better received that Homefront as well as being a far, far better game.

Homefront's multiplayer was actually pretty interesting, with the scoring system almost completely weighted towards objectives and team actions over kills. Unfortunately that same aspect failed to woo the Call of Duty brigade in any meaningful way and the tiny maps didn't do much for everyone else either.

josemlopes:Its Deep Silver, they did the same with Metro and it worked fine.

Also this one is looking rather interesting, I guess it will be like what Sleeping Dogs ended up being for True Crime (that Square Enix got when it was almost finished), a good sequel that took out the shit and brought a lot of new good stuff.

The difference is that Metro 2033 actually had fans. I don't think I've ever heard anybody say anything more positive about Homefront than "It was alright I suppose"

josemlopes:Its Deep Silver, they did the same with Metro and it worked fine.

With respect to the Metro series, Metro 2033 was far better received that Homefront as well as being a far, far better game.

Homefront's multiplayer was actually pretty interesting, with the scoring system almost completely weighted towards objectives and team actions over kills. Unfortunately that same aspect failed to woo the Call of Duty brigade in any meaningful way and the tiny maps didn't do much for everyone else either.

But to be honest they are also games being made by different devs and with very different promises from the original. The comparison with what Sleeping Dogs was to True Crime (it was at first called True Crime: Hong Kong or something close) is a lot more precise.

All we have to hope is that the final product is good and far away from what the first Homefront was.

Aiddon:man, Crytek really should have managed itself better. This really reeks of a company not spending its money intelligently and thus problems are multiplying manifold. In fact most studios' problems can just be summarized with them being incompetent with money. Seriously, get a proper budgeting team into these companies lest gaming start to shrink

Budgeting had nothing to do with it.

They insulted their fans, abandoned their engine and technology, then tried to peddle COD rip offs to people who already bought COD. Crytek tried to sell out, and no one was buying.

You cannot call your fans a bunch of broke pirate neckbeards. You cannot tell the indies that buy your engine to fuck off. You cannot try to muscle in on a locked down market with no prior experience, no fame, and no fanbase to back you up while selling old and stale ideas.

Crysis 1 was the best selling of its franchise because it innovated. Everything else was pandering corridor shooter garbage no one wanted and done much better by other console shooters made by companies with much more experience and recognition.

Crytek tried to beat activision and lost. They bought into the "PC gaming is dead" years late and missed PC's return to the spotlight. And on top of that, they backed the wrong horse (xbone) so they are now trying to a sell a game no one likes on a platform no one likes. No one should have any sympathy for crytek.

matrix3509:I'm more sorry for Crytek USA (aka formerly Vigil Games). All the staff are being laid off. I mean Holy Fuck. Those guys absolutely cannot catch a break.

I don't think there is much weight of community feeling behind the Homefront IP, it was and is a good example of the problems with the excess of the "modern military shooter" genre, but holy balls do we want those nice folks at Crytek UK to land on their feet. I like to think this new Nottingham studio is being formed from as many people as they can get from what is left of Free Radical Design.

Deep Silver does not exactly have the most stable reputation but please, PLEASE treat what remains of the Timesplitters guys with respect and dignity. The games industry is a shitty enough place to work without things like this constantly going on.

Two sunk companies in less than five years. The whole world of AAA development really needs to re-think of how things are done in many areas to prevent what must be a heart-wrenching instability for many studios. This will cause talent loss, burnout and skills loss. What a sorry situation. My heart goes out to those effected.

Well I suppose when all you know is how to create shrubbery such things are inevitable. Anything that splits off from them will be tainted and fail themselves so the rats leaving the sinking ship shouldn't act so smug.

Anyway...Crytanic? Is that how you refer to Crytek? Or is calling Crytek satanic-ish?

They insulted their fans, abandoned their engine and technology, then tried to peddle COD rip offs to people who already bought COD. Crytek tried to sell out, and no one was buying.

You cannot call your fans a bunch of broke pirate neckbeards. You cannot tell the indies that buy your engine to fuck off. You cannot try to muscle in on a locked down market with no prior experience, no fame, and no fanbase to back you up while selling old and stale ideas.

Crysis 1 was the best selling of its franchise because it innovated. Everything else was pandering corridor shooter garbage no one wanted and done much better by other console shooters made by companies with much more experience and recognition.

Crytek tried to beat activision and lost. They bought into the "PC gaming is dead" years late and missed PC's return to the spotlight. And on top of that, they backed the wrong horse (xbone) so they are now trying to a sell a game no one likes on a platform no one likes. No one should have any sympathy for crytek.

You still going on about that? They made a business choice, no need to take it bloody personal.

Question, could they innovated every game and pumped the graphics further and further up...and still make good money? Their talents were limited and you can only innovate so much until you hit a wall that needs time to be overcome, not to mention the glaring problem that their game is still a shooter in the sea of mud at the end of the day. They also attracted the wrong kind of fans so they were doomed from the start. You're supposed to attract fans you can retent through think or thin, not shrubbery watchers who'll call blasphemy the moment the bushes aren't moving 21% more fluid.

They insulted their fans, abandoned their engine and technology, then tried to peddle COD rip offs to people who already bought COD. Crytek tried to sell out, and no one was buying.

You cannot call your fans a bunch of broke pirate neckbeards. You cannot tell the indies that buy your engine to fuck off. You cannot try to muscle in on a locked down market with no prior experience, no fame, and no fanbase to back you up while selling old and stale ideas.

Crysis 1 was the best selling of its franchise because it innovated. Everything else was pandering corridor shooter garbage no one wanted and done much better by other console shooters made by companies with much more experience and recognition.

Crytek tried to beat activision and lost. They bought into the "PC gaming is dead" years late and missed PC's return to the spotlight. And on top of that, they backed the wrong horse (xbone) so they are now trying to a sell a game no one likes on a platform no one likes. No one should have any sympathy for crytek.

You still going on about that? They made a business choice, no need to take it bloody personal.

Question, could they innovated every game and pumped the graphics further and further up...and still make good money? Their talents were limited and you can only innovate so much until you hit a wall that needs time to be overcome, not to mention the glaring problem that their game is still a shooter in the sea of mud at the end of the day. They also attracted the wrong kind of fans so they were doomed from the start. You're supposed to attract fans you can retent through think or thin, not shrubbery watchers who'll call blasphemy the moment the bushes aren't moving 21% more fluid.

Crytek did make it personal.

They cried about how crysis 1 wasn't making COD levels of money. So they called PC gamers pirates.

When they got to consoles, they whined about how they still aren't making huge money. They called console gamers a bunch of pirates too. In fact, the CEO went on record and called console gamers impatient, entitled, and out of touch.

Every single time Crytek fucks up, they put the blame on others. About how its not their fault. How its the world that is conspiring against them.

When consoles were made to their EXACT desires, they still found a reason to bitch about how its not enough and how the world was holding them back from greatness.

The only common denominator in their problems were them. Crytek is the one at fault, not the consumer they hate so much.

Crysis 1 was the best selling in the franchise. It was PC exclusive. They found a fanbase that wanted games catered to PC limitations over consoles using cryengine which was cutting edge at the time. They could have made money from their fanbase and their engine. Crysis 1 did the marketing for it and any indie dev studio would kill for crysis on the cheap.

but they insulted indies too.

Crytek scrapped their engine for a much less advanced one and started peddling bog standard console shooters that do absolutely nothing that other console shooters don't already do better. Their engine was going to be the hot new thing in game development but they had to scrap it because it wasn't "cool."

Right, because if you are making money it must be cool money or it don't count. idiots, I guess big pharma must be broke because its not selling ipads.

Crytek is at fault for everything. It wasn't the world, it wasn't the gamers, it wasn't their "unfaithful" employees, and it wasn't some conspiracy.

and no, innovation does not have a wall. It does not stop with the year. They could have made engines that opened up new ways to expand gaming but they decided to take the lazy route of low effort shooters and a 4 hour long quick time event for 60$.

And before you say shrubbery its was consoles that bankrupted them. Their shrubbery was the best selling shrubbery ever. They abandoned PC gaming in 2008-9, so graphics didnt kill crytek.

They thought console gamers would open their wallets up to low effort COD clones. They were wrong.

But to be honest they are also games being made by different devs and with very different promises from the original. The comparison with what Sleeping Dogs was to True Crime (it was at first called True Crime: Hong Kong or something close) is a lot more precise.

All we have to hope is that the final product is good and far away from what the first Homefront was.

What? Both Metro games were developed by 4A Games, Deep Silver only came in late in the development of Last Light after THQ crashed and burned.

But to be honest they are also games being made by different devs and with very different promises from the original. The comparison with what Sleeping Dogs was to True Crime (it was at first called True Crime: Hong Kong or something close) is a lot more precise.

All we have to hope is that the final product is good and far away from what the first Homefront was.

What? Both Metro games were developed by 4A Games, Deep Silver only came in late in the development of Last Light after THQ crashed and burned.

I was talking about Homefront, that is why I then said that Sleeping Dogs was a more fitting comparison since the sequel is very different from the original with a new team but the publisher change midway did kept the same developer of the sequel project.

Andy Shandy:I have some exclusive footage straight from Crytek's offices.

In other news, Deep Silver are now doomed, thanks to the Homefront Curse. What is it that companies see in this IP? I played the original, it was a neat concept but certainly nothing revolutionary (pardon the pun)

Because it has potential. If they had some decent writers on the project and some decent effort put into the game, it could be amazing. The perfect example is looking at the single player campaigns for Call of Duty and Battlefield. With the exception of the Bad Company games, Battlefield single player stories have been weak and incredibly boring to even play. CoD on the other hand always ends up being amazing. They forsake realism for immersion and summer action film feel, especially Treyarch ones. There are so many military FPS games that came out that ended up sucking because they tried to jump onto the bandwagon instead of putting more effort into the game to polish it up. Which is why so many just feel hollow and bland.

The first twenty minutes of Homefront was pretty good. But then it quickly went boring and "Fuck yeah, America because....America!" instead of giving us interesting characters and legitimate motivations.

Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

2012: Fibble - Flick 'n' Roll (what?)2013: Warface (<60 metacritic on all platforms)2013: Ryse: Son of Rome (around 60 metacritic and dubbed the Quick Time Event game that doesn't matter what you do you're still going to progress)2014: The Collectables2014 (unreleased): The Arena of Fate (free to play garbage)2014 (Unreleased): Hunt: Horrors of the Gilded Age

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Lightknight:Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

2012: Fibble - Flick 'n' Roll (what?)2013: Warface (<60 metacritic on all platforms)2013: Ryse: Son of Rome (around 60 metacritic and dubbed the Quick Time Event game that doesn't matter what you do you're still going to progress)2014: The Collectables2014 (unreleased): The Arena of Fate (free to play garbage)2014 (Unreleased): Hunt: Horrors of the Gilded Age

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Crysis was famous because it did something people said was impossible. People said that there was no way water physics would come last generation, no way we can render actually dense foliage, and no way to make a large scale physics engine.

Half Life 2 had physics, but it was smaller in scale. Crysis took that and made it much bigger. You had to be there to know how big of a leap Crysis was. If you are a console gamer, you wouldn't know. Same way anyone after 2004 wouldn't know why Half Life 2 was such a leap forward.

Crysis proved all of those wrong. That the 7th gen wasn't as limited as people thought. In fact, almost all of Crysis's advances in technology were adopted into the AAA and indie scene and are heavily used by Ubisoft.

On PC crytek was cutting edge and furthered the medium. On console, it was low effort cash grabs with cut down versions of their old games. Often years down the line.

Far Cry 1 was an OLD PC game, and got 89 on metacritic. It came to consoles 10 years later. On consoles it was a low effort and heavily cut down port years after the fact. Same with Crysis which wasn't even on the same engine. It was on the cut down console engine. Same with all their games.

Crytek just doesn't know how to make a game for consoles. If they stuck with PC, where the majority of their experience is, they wouldn't be bankrupt right now. They wouldn't have abandoned their patents and allowed other companies to make crytek obsolete.

Crytek died because they wasted their time on a market they had no experience in and the rest of the PC market kneecapped them over the years. Especially from Nvidia. They neglected their source of income and paid the price for it.

They cried about how crysis 1 wasn't making COD levels of money. So they called PC gamers pirates.

When they got to consoles, they whined about how they still aren't making huge money. They called console gamers a bunch of pirates too. In fact, the CEO went on record and called console gamers impatient, entitled, and out of touch.

Every single time Crytek fucks up, they put the blame on others. About how its not their fault. How its the world that is conspiring against them.

When consoles were made to their EXACT desires, they still found a reason to bitch about how its not enough and how the world was holding them back from greatness.

The only common denominator in their problems were them. Crytek is the one at fault, not the consumer they hate so much.

Crysis 1 was the best selling in the franchise. It was PC exclusive. They found a fanbase that wanted games catered to PC limitations over consoles using cryengine which was cutting edge at the time. They could have made money from their fanbase and their engine. Crysis 1 did the marketing for it and any indie dev studio would kill for crysis on the cheap.

but they insulted indies too.

Crytek scrapped their engine for a much less advanced one and started peddling bog standard console shooters that do absolutely nothing that other console shooters don't already do better. Their engine was going to be the hot new thing in game development but they had to scrap it because it wasn't "cool."

Right, because if you are making money it must be cool money or it don't count. idiots, I guess big pharma must be broke because its not selling ipads.

Crytek is at fault for everything. It wasn't the world, it wasn't the gamers, it wasn't their "unfaithful" employees, and it wasn't some conspiracy.

and no, innovation does not have a wall. It does not stop with the year. They could have made engines that opened up new ways to expand gaming but they decided to take the lazy route of low effort shooters and a 4 hour long quick time event for 60$.

And before you say shrubbery its was consoles that bankrupted them. Their shrubbery was the best selling shrubbery ever. They abandoned PC gaming in 2008-9, so graphics didnt kill crytek.

They thought console gamers would open their wallets up to low effort COD clones. They were wrong.

Crysis 1 meant they were tarred with the view that all they could do was graphics, when the common man to your own fans think all you can do is shrubbery what way is there to go? You may disagree, but I don't believe they could innovate to such a large level as you said they did with Crysis 1 every year, so they fail and than bam they're "betraying" their "fans". They had the choice of appealing to fickle people, or try to grab a wider more easy audience.

Well I'll say this, the games weren't the problem. I've played Crysis 2 and found its online to be fine, in fact properly one of the FPSs I've had the most on in multiplayer (it helps I was actually pretty damn good at it I suppose).So whatever you think of Crysis 2 its quality wouldn't have been the reason it failed, unless you think the "hardcore fans" have that large an influence which would be irrelevant they were purposely throwing them away.

Ultratwinkie:Far Cry 1 was an OLD PC game, and got 89 on metacritic. It came to consoles 10 years later. On consoles it was a low effort and heavily cut down port years after the fact.

I haven't played Far Cry 1, however I did play instincts over a friends when I was a youngin. So while accurate that it did come 10 years later, you fail to mention that the reason was consoles got their own version in instincts. If instincts wasn't made they would have ported it over (though cut down yes before you say it).

I've not played Far Cry 1 on consoles but looking online...how is it "heavily cut down"? 720 and 30 frames, and pop ins seem to the most common complaints I'm seeing and that isn't "heavily cut down" to me. Heavily cut down would imply they outright took out levels/stages/areas, weapons, characters, enemy types, powers, and the like.

They cried about how crysis 1 wasn't making COD levels of money. So they called PC gamers pirates.

When they got to consoles, they whined about how they still aren't making huge money. They called console gamers a bunch of pirates too. In fact, the CEO went on record and called console gamers impatient, entitled, and out of touch.

Every single time Crytek fucks up, they put the blame on others. About how its not their fault. How its the world that is conspiring against them.

When consoles were made to their EXACT desires, they still found a reason to bitch about how its not enough and how the world was holding them back from greatness.

The only common denominator in their problems were them. Crytek is the one at fault, not the consumer they hate so much.

Crysis 1 was the best selling in the franchise. It was PC exclusive. They found a fanbase that wanted games catered to PC limitations over consoles using cryengine which was cutting edge at the time. They could have made money from their fanbase and their engine. Crysis 1 did the marketing for it and any indie dev studio would kill for crysis on the cheap.

but they insulted indies too.

Crytek scrapped their engine for a much less advanced one and started peddling bog standard console shooters that do absolutely nothing that other console shooters don't already do better. Their engine was going to be the hot new thing in game development but they had to scrap it because it wasn't "cool."

Right, because if you are making money it must be cool money or it don't count. idiots, I guess big pharma must be broke because its not selling ipads.

Crytek is at fault for everything. It wasn't the world, it wasn't the gamers, it wasn't their "unfaithful" employees, and it wasn't some conspiracy.

and no, innovation does not have a wall. It does not stop with the year. They could have made engines that opened up new ways to expand gaming but they decided to take the lazy route of low effort shooters and a 4 hour long quick time event for 60$.

And before you say shrubbery its was consoles that bankrupted them. Their shrubbery was the best selling shrubbery ever. They abandoned PC gaming in 2008-9, so graphics didnt kill crytek.

They thought console gamers would open their wallets up to low effort COD clones. They were wrong.

Crysis 1 meant they were tarred with the view that all they could do was graphics, when the common man to your own fans think all you can do is shrubbery what way is there to go? You may disagree, but I don't believe they could innovate to such a large level as you said they did with Crysis 1 every year, so they fail and than bam they're "betraying" their "fans". They had the choice of appealing to fickle people, or try to grab a wider more easy audience.

Well I'll say this, the games weren't the problem. I've played Crysis 2 and found its online to be fine, in fact properly one of the FPSs I've had the most on in multiplayer (it helps I was actually pretty damn good at it I suppose).So whatever you think of Crysis 2 its quality wouldn't have been the reason it failed, unless you think the "hardcore fans" have that large an influence which would be irrelevant they were purposely throwing them away.

Ultratwinkie:Far Cry 1 was an OLD PC game, and got 89 on metacritic. It came to consoles 10 years later. On consoles it was a low effort and heavily cut down port years after the fact.

I haven't played Far Cry 1, however I did play instincts over a friends when I was a youngin. So while accurate that it did come 10 years later, you fail to mention that the reason was consoles got their own version in instincts. If instincts wasn't made they would have ported it over (though cut down yes before you say it).

I've not played Far Cry 1 on consoles but looking online...how is it "heavily cut down"? 720 and 30 frames, and pop ins seem to the most common complaints I'm seeing and that isn't "heavily cut down" to me. Heavily cut down would imply they outright took out levels/stages/areas, weapons, characters, enemy types, powers, and the like.

Nvidia innovates every year. a lot of companies do. In fact, a lot of their tech is based off Crysis tech. Nvidia did what Crytek could have done.

They could have easily sold their engine to other developers, and gotten the massive cash unreal 4 is getting. But that wasn't cool enough for them.

So now unreal is destroying cryengine, and its all crytek's fault. So now unreal is elevating gaming instead of crytek even when crytek had a huge fucking lead.

They abandoned what they did have for what they could have had. Its like a man quitting his five figure job to try to be a freelance DJ with no prior experience.

You can whine and whine about how gaming is "corrupted" by shrubbery but what Crysis did was a milestone for gaming. All of its advances filtered out into all facets of gaming today. We have physics because of crysis. We have water physics because of crysis. We have efficient foliage because of crysis. We have advanced dynamic lighting because of crysis. It pushed the technology to its limit just like GTA V did for consoles.

Whether you like it or not, what Crysis did was amazing and was good for the industry. Just like Half Life that came before it. Just like XCOM that came before that.

yet when PC pushes boundaries, its suddenly bad. When consoles do the same things that PC did years ago, its suddenly ok.

It also doesn't matter if you found it fun. The game sold like shit. No one bought it. In fact, it struggles to even reach the sales of Crysis 1. It also got lower scores than crysis 1.

Far Cry 1 was cut down for consoles so they can handle it. Do you have any idea how embarrassing it is for next gen consoles (at the time) to not be able to fully handle a 10 year old game? It was a low effort cash grab. They didn't even bother trying.

Far Cry was cut down because far cry was another crysis. It was open world and required you to see long distances. It was meant to showcase their technical ability and by extension improve their reputation in the engine market. It was meant to be big to prove that huge open shooters can work.

so 720p 30 fps and heavy pop in destroys the very reason the game exists. It was meant to be big and rendering everything instead of little bits.

So not only did it fail to fulfill the original goal it had on PC, but it was 10 years too late. The technology had already become standard. It was just a low effort cash grab by lazily porting old games.

Lightknight:Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Aiddon:man, Crytek really should have managed itself better. This really reeks of a company not spending its money intelligently and thus problems are multiplying manifold. In fact most studios' problems can just be summarized with them being incompetent with money. Seriously, get a proper budgeting team into these companies lest gaming start to shrink

Snip

With all due respect, you can argue Crytek being assholes with Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2, the gameplay being worse even, BUT...

Cryengine 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cryengine 2. So what if one did more? The actual ENGINE part is simply better, more efficient, faster.

Lightknight:Good, now maybe a competent studio with a decent track record will give it the attention and skill it deserves.

Take a real look at Crytek's history. They are not a studio you want handling any IP that you actually like.

2004: Far Cry 1 (45 and 50 metacritics on ps3/360)2007-2013: Crysis 1-3 and warhead (the only claim to fame) Famous almost purely due to the graphical demands.

Seriously, let them die (the studio, not the developers). There's no dignity left even. Why people like them is beyond me because aside from 1 IP (which I'm sure other more competent studios could do better) they're garbage. Far Cry which has actually gotten good only did so out of their hands.

Don't let them ruin homefront too. It'd likely just be free to play EA trash.

Aiddon:man, Crytek really should have managed itself better. This really reeks of a company not spending its money intelligently and thus problems are multiplying manifold. In fact most studios' problems can just be summarized with them being incompetent with money. Seriously, get a proper budgeting team into these companies lest gaming start to shrink

Snip

With all due respect, you can argue Crytek being assholes with Cryengine 3 and Crysis 2, the gameplay being worse even, BUT...

Cryengine 3 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cryengine 2. So what if one did more? The actual ENGINE part is simply better, more efficient, faster.

Sure everything is faster if you cut a lot of it off.

I am sure every next gen game would run faster if we only put 8 bit graphics and 8 bit gameplay on them. After all, its more efficient.

and 8 bit graphics worked for Nintendo. so lets all go back there because its faster.

The fact is them cutting their engine was the biggest mistake ever. Especially with others with more experience on console and more aggressive devs on PC offering more flexible engines with cheaper rates.

Who would use cryengine on a console when console engines have tied and true reputations? With more established user bases? No one. Who would use cryengine after it got nerfed on PC? No one.

and thats why crytek is in the position it is in.

If they stuck with their original plan of expanding and refining rather than culling, they wouldn't be in this position at all. But no, they had to chase the mythical money boasted by activision. As if a single crytek game can beat the entire catalog of activision games PLUS the biggest MMO ever.